UCLA Professors Barred From Posting Video Online For Classes

from the can't-educate-unless-you-pay-up dept

Copycense points us to a story out of UCLA about how professors who, in the past, would post video segments online for their classes to watch, have been forced to stop due to claims of copyright infringement by the Association for Information Media and Equipment. You see, the whole educational fair use exception to copyright law apparently doesn't apply because the AIME says it doesn't (even though UCLA was pretty sure that fair use did apply), and it's causing problems for both students and teachers. UCLA still claims that its online video service was legal... but professors have been told to stop using it. Instead, they're sending students to UCLA's media lab to watch videos... but the lab has greatly reduced hours (including being closed all weekend) due to budget cuts. Isn't it great to see how copyright is "promoting the progress" by making it that much more difficult to educate our young leaders of tomorrow?

Of course, just as I finished writing up the above paragraph, I came across a different story about how UCLA has created a portal of TV video content for students, basically aggregating authorized TV content from Hulu and YouTube so that students can access it all in a single interface. So, the university makes it easier to watch entertainment video... but educational videos? Too bad.

Filed Under: copyright, education, ucla, video
Companies: aime, ucla

If A Video Is Filmed By Chimps... Who Owns The Copyright?

from the for-you-lawyers dept

Here's a fun one for you lawyers out there. Richard points us to a story about a movie made entirely by chimpanzees who were given cameras, which is now being broadcast on the BBC. However, Richard raises a good question: who owns the copyright on the film. Generally speaking (and, yes, there are some exceptions), whoever creates the actual work gets the copyright, and it seems clear that the chimps specifically learned to pay attention to the viewfinder on the camera. Of course, with films and such, there may be more contractual issues set up, but I doubt the chimps signed anything. Perhaps it's a work-for-hire situation, even if the chimps weren't paid? Though, according to some, if the chimps aren't paid, they won't have incentive to make any new movies...

Filed Under: chimpanzees, copyright, video

CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It

from the killing-culture dept

In the past, we've seen time and time again how copyright has been used to lock up culture and make it inaccessible. At times this is literally destroying culture, as content is left on degrading media, and those who can preserve it are blocked from doing so. The latest example of this, as sent in by an anonymous reader, involves the famous comedian Jack Benny. Apparently, a bunch of Jack Benny fans have been seeking the right to digitize old audio/video footage of Benny from CBS in order to preserve it. But, in a short-sighted decision, CBS has instead decided to lock up the content and let it disintegrate away (literally):

Late last week the International Jack Benny Fan Club got some very bad news: rather than allow the club with the Benny family's enthusiastic blessing to digitally preserve some unreleased public domain Benny show masters that CBS has in its possession, the network is giving a thumbs down to the idea -- thus sealing these shows' fate so they will never be seen again. In effect, it's a bullet through the head of this body of Benny work. And here is the most frustrating tidbit for comedy fans and those who study comedy: the Fan Club offered to do the preservation at no cost to CBS.

Yes, some of this content is public domain. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone has a right to access it, but it is rather ridiculous that CBS won't even bother to release the public domain material.

Update: In the comments, Ben pointed to this response which claims that there is more to this story, and that CBS just didn't want to give the content out to this particular fan group. I still don't quite understand what the problem is with that fan group, and why CBS won't allow it, but it gives a bit more perspective on the story.

Filed Under: archiving, copyright, jack benny, public domain, video
Companies: cbs

Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

from the aren't-the-courts-public? dept

In something of a repeat of the judicial system barring the videotaping and live broadcast of Joel Tenenbaum's trial, the Supreme Court voted to bar video streaming of a controversial court case in California. The 5 - 4 ruling was supported mainly on procedural grounds -- about how the courts couldn't make such a "change" without giving more notice. It's difficult to comprehend how that makes any sense. This is not a massive "change" in procedures or anything that affects how the judicial system works. It's merely an attempt to provide more transparency to what goes on in the court rooms, which seems like an extremely laudable goal, no matter where you stand on the various cases where this issue has come up.

Of course, while officially the ruling was about procedural issues, the majority did also claim a fear that broadcasting the trial would put a chill on witnesses. This seems backwards. This is the public court system, and reporters are allowed to report on (most) cases, so anyone who testifies is going to be known to the public anyway and what they say will be reported on, too. How is that any different than if the video is recorded and broadcast in some manner? If there are special cases where video might create a real chilling effect, deal with those special cases, rather than pushing a blanket "no video rule." As Justin Silverman wrote before the ruling came out, the idea that videos in the courtroom would lead to attacks on witnesses made no sense, since it was already illegal to attack witnesses and we have a legal system to deal with that:

What good is giving the press freedom if it is not allowed to use the tool of its trade? In this case, that tool is a video camera. Similarly, law enforcement has many tools of its trade, the most important being the law. In California, the law includes prohibiting the very acts Prop 8 supporters and--apparently--the Justices are so concerned about. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but can we just let both journalists and police do their jobs?

By staying the broadcast of this trial--and impliedly finding that Prop 8 supporters will suffer "irreparable harm" absent a stay--the Supreme Court seems to be advocating curtailment of the press as a means of law enforcement. In a sense, there's a backwards Heckler's Veto at play: the Court is protecting the right of witnesses to speak by limiting the ways in which they will be heard and preventing retaliation by those who will not have heard them. Instead, those witnesses should take the stand knowing they will be given the largest forum possible in which to speak and the strongest protection against those who may retaliate when they do so.

And that retaliation is a big may. Among their reasons for requesting a stay, the petitioners say that "public broadcast can intimidate witnesses who might refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution by someone who may be watching the broadcast." Further, "all of the petitioners' witnesses have expressed concern over the potential public broadcast of trial proceedings and some have stated that they will refuse to testify if the district court goes forward with its plan."

In a controversial case such as this one, no doubt the unpopular speaker is a nervous one. But I'm skeptical that witnesses already committed to testifying will suddenly shy away because of the prospect of video dissemination. Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? That there are already websites identifying Prop 8 supporters and where they live? Banning a broadcast, I believe, will not change this. But to allow a broadcast, I'm certain, will further enlighten the debate....

Filed Under: courtroom, judicial system, supreme court, transparency, video

Nine Inch Nails Fans Create Incredible Live DVD From Footage: Encourage Everyone To Share Widely

from the have-fun-with-it dept

You may recall that about a year ago, Trent Reznor jokingly mentioned that 400 gigs of high definition video footage of some shows from Nine Inch Nail's previous tour had been released online "by a mysterious, shadowy group of subversives." Not only that, he noted "I'll bet some enterprising fans could assemble something pretty cool." Now, of course it was Rezor's own people who were "leaking" the content, but we'd been hearing all sorts of cool things about what they were doing, and on Christmas Eve they officially released what they had put together called "Another Version Of The Truth: The Gift." It's an amazing display of crowdsourced teamwork by a group calling itself "This One Is On Us," a play on Reznor's statement when he released "The Slip" as a completely free download, when he said "This one's on me."

As they note, it took 12 months, involving a "core team of dozens (with a network of thousands), spanning 3 continents, 4 languages, 5 specialist teams [and] countless sleepless nights." And what did they come out with? Well, it's a concert video that's available in pretty much any format you might want (and they're still adding more). In fact you'll soon be able to get it in Blu-ray. But in the meantime, you can get it in standard DVD of dual layer DVD formats. You can get it for the PS3 or as a basic .MOV file. There's a version catering to those who want to watch on an iPod, and (of course) it's on YouTube.

And as we're being told how awful BitTorrent is and how various torrent trackers and search engines need to be shut down, the folks behind this effort released it under a Creative Commons license, and people are being told that they "are encouraged to seed for as long as possible." As for Reznor himself? He notes that he's "blown away" and reminded (yet again) that Nine Inch Nails fans "kick ass."

But Bittorrent can't be used for any legitimate purpose, right? And musicians can't possibly embrace what the technology allows? Once again, we're seeing why those who embrace what technology allows will do just fine moving forward. It's only those who think that the answer is to bring out the lawyers and try to hold back progress who will find themselves struggling to create business models that work.

Filed Under: fans, file sharing, nine inch nails, trent reznor, video

Shouldn't The Labels Be Paying YouTube For All The 'Free' Service They Provide?

from the because-free-is-bad,-right? dept

I recently wrote about Simon Cowell's conflicting statements expressing anger that YouTube didn't pay him for showing the Susan Boyle video millions of times, while then being happy that the same video will result in 10 million album sales. In my latest column for The Telegraph, I explore how the legacy music industry made a huge mistake in attacking YouTube and having videos pulled down off the site for not getting "paid" enough, when just a few years ago if they had wanted to put up music videos of their bands, they would have paid an arm and a leg for software, hosting and bandwidth -- and the consumer experience would have been a hell of a lot worse (RealNetworks media player, anyone?).

In thinking more about this, I was realizing how hypocritical the recording industry is on this particular topic. After all, they go on and on about how bad "free" is, and how they must get paid for any use of their content or they can't survive. And, yet, when someone gives them something for free (and YouTube provides free software, free bandwidth, free community and a bunch of other benefits), they complain that they're not getting paid. It's an incredible double standard. If the recording industry were actually being intellectually honest (I know, I know...), wouldn't they be demanding to pay Google for providing such a service, since (as they claim) you "can't make money from free"?

Separately, I had wanted to mention this in the Telegraph column, but ran out of room. It is worth noting that at least some of the industry has, in some ways, "embraced" YouTube with the launch of Vevo a couple weeks ago (though, that launch was completely bungled by apparently not expecting anyone to actually visit the site). I still haven't quite figured out what Vevo is, however. It's a joint venture of Google and Universal Music, with EMI and Sony Music as partners (Warner remains the major label holdout). As far as I can tell, though, it just seeks to be a separate platform to give the labels some more "control" over videos on YouTube. I still can't figure out why this needs to be a separate company, other than to play financial games. Isn't this just a feature of YouTube?

Filed Under: business models, free, hosting, video, youtube
Companies: google, vevo, youtube

Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up?

from the evil-is-as-evil-does dept

I'm wondering if there's more to this, because it seems rather "un-Google-like." The makers of a set top box that can display internet content are complaining that Google is blocking them from displaying YouTube content, unless they agree to "partner" and commit to buying lots of ads (the amount is in dispute). If this sounds quite a bit like the ongoing battle between Hulu and Boxee, you might be right. However, in that case, at least you could sort of understand the (misguided) thinking behind it, since Hulu is owned by the colossally short-sighted content companies. But what's Google's excuse? If all these set top boxes are really doing is accessing free internet content and formatting it better for a TV, why stop it? They're really no different than accessing content via a computer and a browser -- it's just that the "computer" is a set top box and the "browser" is formatted for a television. That shouldn't require a special agreement, or any sort of ad buy commitment. Update: Received a confused and angry email from YouTube PR linking us to the very Wired article we linked to and demanding we add their PR statement (which is already in the Wired article). However, it does not actually answer the questions raised or change the point of this post. The fact that YouTube restricts set tops from accessing the content still does not make sense.

Filed Under: api, blocking, set top boxes, tv, video, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Dear Hulu: Stop Treating Me Like A Criminal

from the if-you-don't-want-me-to-watch... dept

I mentioned recently that, for some idiotic reason, Hulu has stopped letting me view any of its content. That's because I use WiTopia's VPN service for security reasons. It seems that plenty of other WiTopia users are discovering this, as well, and are getting annoyed. The issue is that Hulu wants to block people from outside the US from viewing its content (for licensing reasons, even if they're pretty pointless in today's world). But, for some bizarre reason, it's been decided that anyone who uses any sort of VPN or proxy can't use Hulu at all because they might be coming from a foreign country. I'm sitting here in California and Hulu tells me I might be illegally accessing its content, so it doesn't allow it. So, instead, I don't give Hulu any additional ad views and I don't watch the content I wanted to watch. How does that help anyone? It appears to make everyone worse off. And it's not like WiTopia is some free anonymous proxy -- it's a pay-service that has been around for ages and is used regularly for WiFi security purposes. Many of its users are US-based (the company is based in the US, and most of its servers are in the US as well). So, because (gasp!) a small group of people outside the US might dare to catch a video (with ads!!), all of Witopia's US customers can't watch any content at all? This is the same ridiculous content industry mindset that drives so many people to unauthorized file sharing: they treat you as a criminal first and force you to prove you're not (or sometimes, don't even let you prove otherwise). The problem the industry is facing isn't due to some guy in Europe catching The Colbert Report from across the sea. It comes from turning off legitimate customers and users who are sick of being treated like crap.

Filed Under: content, security, video, vpn
Companies: hulu, witopia

Stop Overreacting: Hulu Not Ditching Free Yet

from the hold-your-horses dept

A ton of readers here have been submitting various versions of stories claiming that Hulu is getting rid of free content. I'd been ignoring the story, because it's a non-story at this point. But people keep submitting it, so let's go through the details. Basically, at a Broadcasting & Cable event, News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey basically said that free content isn't the best way to monetize and that Hulu "concurs." Here's specifically how B&C reported it:

"It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," he said. Carey said that while everyone cites the infamous Jeff Zucker quip that "We'e exchanging analogue dollars for digital dimes," the industry continues to do exactly that. The strategy needs to be more than just fighting piracy and Google, he says.

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," Carey said. "Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

AdVerse had a quick chat with Carey too and posed the question, when exactly does Hulu start charging then? Carey, who says he's only been to one Hulu board meeting since arriving at News Corp., suggests there is still no timeline but supposes it's at least in 2010. Carey says that while throwing up a pay-wall around all content is not the answer, it doesn't mean there wont be fees for some specially-created content and TV previews

So... this is really no different than what was said a few months back, when News Corp's Jon Miller started saying that Hulu should add subscription offerings. It's the official News Corp. position, ever since Rupert Murdoch suddenly flip flopped and decided free content online is evil. All News Corp. execs have now been making noise about trying to charge for content.

But... Carey is just one board member, not Hulu management, and has only been to one board meeting -- this is hardly an official announcement. He even admits that a paywall is not the answer. This isn't anything official from Hulu. So, before we freak out about how dumb this is, let's wait and see what Hulu actually does. As we've been seeing the ad rates on Hulu can be quite impressive, and the site itself is still somewhat new. So, yes, giving up on free content would be dumb, and would just drive people back to file sharing for TV shows. But until we see what Hulu is actually planning, the claim that Hulu is giving up on free content simply isn't supported by what's been said.

Filed Under: chase carey, free, hulu, tv, video
Companies: hulu, news corp.

New Estimate: YouTube's Bandwidth Bill Is Zero

from the remember-all-that-dark-fiber? dept

Earlier this year, there was an analyst report that got a lot of attention, claiming that YouTube's bandwidth bills were huge, and there was no way the site was likely to ever become profitable. Google critics gleefully danced on Google's grave, mocking the company for the purchase. However, the estimates by the analyst seemed off, and we began to wonder if the ancillary benefits of YouTube actually made the site a much better investment. In fact, Google later hinted at exactly that point. One of the major problems with the original estimates of YouTube's bandwidth costs were that they simply extrapolated out the cost of bandwidth, and never took into account Google's unique position -- such as the fact that, during the "down" years a while back, Google scooped up a ton of dark fiber for pennies on the dollar.

Now, a new analyst report points out that, given how much traffic runs through Google, combined with all that dark fiber it owns, there's a good chance that Google has set up peering relationships with other backbone providers, such that YouTube's actual bandwidth bill may be closer to zero. I'm not sure I believe that either, but at the very least, it points out that there's a lot more to consider here than simply extrapolating out the number of videos times the basic cost of bandwidth.

Filed Under: bandwidth bill, dark fiber, video, youtube
Companies: google